Making Abortion Obsolete

In 20 years, science will have advanced to a point as to make abortion obsolete. The pro-life vs pro-choice debate will be irrelevant. So before
science overwhelms us, we best start discussing NOW the repercussions and consequences, soon to be reality, of the "Artificial Womb."

Artificial wombs will be "reality" within 20 years, according to the London Times. Indeed, 20 years seems a conservative estimate given an
earlier report in The Guardian, another UK newspaper, which predicted them for 2008.

Discussion of ectogenesis – growing an embryo outside the mother's womb – may sound wildly futuristic. But a few years ago, cloning and genetic
modification seemed impossible. A few years before that, the idea of a 66-year-old woman giving birth was absurd; it happened last January. And only
last week, British scientists received an official go-ahead to create human embryos from two mothers.

For better or worse, new reproductive technologies are redefining the ground rules of reproduction. (And, no, the force of law can not hold back
scientific 'progress,' as authorities have discovered repeatedly since Galileo's day.)...............

New reproductive technologies may also redefine the politics surrounding reproduction, including the issue of abortion. I welcome the prospect. It is
difficult to believe that science could do a worse job with the issue than courts and fanatic rhetoric. At the very least, science may offer new
methods of ending a pregnancy without destroying an embryo or fetus.
(snip)
Recently, doctors have been successful in administering perflubron – a liquid that replaces the amniotic fluid – to babies as young as
23-weeks-old, with a 70 percent survival rate.

Creating artificial wombs:

Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine has been engineering artificial wombs using cells from the endometrium, the lining of the
uterus.

Beginning in 2001, her lab started growing sheets of human tissue composed of cells from
the endometrium, the lining of the uterus. This engineered tissue, which used starter cells donated by infertile patients, was meant to bolster the
clinic’s in-vitro fertilization success. A layer of endometrial cells is, after all, the ideal platform on which to nurture an embryo, a medium
almost as good as mom would have made.

Human embryos successfully attached themselves to the engineered womb and began to grow; the experiment was stopped after a few days only because
of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) regulations. Japanese gynecology professor Yoshinori Kuwabara has created a completely artificial womb which sustained
goat fetuses for several weeks.

The simple fact of the matter is that people are actively pursuing this field and radical success in it may arrive suddenly, without warning. If
we are smart, we'll seriously consider the ethical implications now while they are still theory rather than reality. So, are artificial wombs a a
good idea or not?

Some of the ethical and physiological questions that arise are:

1) Although the fetus can be safely monitored and it's diet safely regulated, avoiding unsafe drugs, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine etc, will the
absence of the mothers voice, heart beat and rhythm of her body motion effect the babies overall well being?

2) Would this technology allow courts, insurance companies and employers dictate a woman's choice to carry her pregnancy to term physically?

3) Would the fetus a woman seeking to terminate an unwanted pregnancy automatically go into an artificial womb and be up for adoption immediately?

4) Will this technology set a precedent for cloning? Will a couple that lost a child be able to re-produce that child, again artificially?

Would be nice to have such options. I look forward to progression towards this.
Seems like a win across the board, from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego
motherhood simply for that). Also, removal of the whole debate..

however, this sounds costly (at least initially) so it wouldn't effect the debate for awhile unless it was a government program..which perhaps it
should be (the right of a artifical womb for all females? hmm..)

Would a single man be able to purchase one of these and some eggs in the same way fertilization clinics work for females now? (choose the right egg
based on desired traits of the mother donor..etc).

It sounds like a lot of things to discuss..and perhaps your right, the discussions about such tech that is right on the horizon should start before
this step breaks...

First off, this is long off in the future, not by 2020. It won't be cost effective enough, nor good enough yet. While yes, cloning has been
accomplished, it has a high failure rate, and is extremely expensive. How many cloned animals or people have you met?

Also, not only is it important for the fetus to hear the mother, it is important for the fetus to hear the father too. Those bonds are developed.

Most likely, if it was ever successful, it will just be used for people who have fertility issues and can't carry.

Just like abortion is the choice of the woman, how and when she carries the child also. And I think most mothers, except maybe those stressed abotu
their figures, will want to carry the babies themselves.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would be nice to have such options. I look forward to progression towards this.
Seems like a win across the board, from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego
motherhood simply for that). Also, removal of the whole debate..

.

If women forgo having children because of their figure, they were not emotionally mature to have a kid to begin with. That is something that you
accept as a mother. Hell my kid wrecked my body, and I wouldn't change it for one second.

Originally posted by luciddream
It would boil down to whether, a human babies living in artificial womb will be have any motherly feeling toward the mother.

Why wouldn't they be? Adopted babies feel completely part of the family they were adopted into..
being a parent is not a biological thing.

I think we would be able to determine the sex as well. This would probably put a population crisis. and there would be laws on how many male children
you could have.

Why? the same tech would allow for a single gender race for a million years without any trouble..not that thats ideal, but actually, it may be a
fallback technology should anything bad happen to us down the road that comes close to a total human purge.

In saying that, I would probably choose to have a girl before a boy first. Girls are easier to control until they hit their troubled teens...and so
long as you raised someone with good principles, they should be alright. Boys are hellions until their late teens...then..well, they are still
hellions, but no longer your responsibility. heh

Without reading the OP in entirety, based on just first impressions by the image you have presented, I immediately thought of the Matrix and all those
tubes people were grown in.

After reading, I still can't help but think of that scene from the Matrix. Are we to become so mechanical in our reproduction, sure there are benefits
but I am curious as to the effects of a mechanically grown child. Like you said, how does the lack of sound effect the child and if it does couldn't
those sounds be simulated. Would a fetus even know?

With changing our food supply so fast, there won't be many normal kids born in twenty years here in the USA. They will have sicknesses that can't
be treated and severely irrational behavior. I'm sure that many of our youth already cannot have kids. Notice how many people have to adopt now?

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would be nice to have such options. I look forward to progression towards this.
Seems like a win across the board, from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego
motherhood simply for that). Also, removal of the whole debate..

.

If women forgo having children because of their figure, they were not emotionally mature to have a kid to begin with. That is something that you
accept as a mother. Hell my kid wrecked my body, and I wouldn't change it for one second.

That is a pretty shallow reason.

Emotional maturity rarely has anything to do with breeding. I know plenty of unfit mothers.
In a way, I respect those whom consider the shallow things..it shows a certain level of self awareness...better to consider that and take precautions
than not think about it, experience it, resent the kid and become a fairly dark person.

I wonder about the truth of that, I'm 26 and have been exposed to a lot of GMO's and stuff like that throughout my life, I wonder how that has
effected me and others. A lot of friends my age also started children. My wife recently gave birth to our first child, a little girl and maybe it's
just a coincidence but a lot of my friends who have also had kids are also having girls. In fact out of all the babies I know that were born this year
which is probably around the 5-10, only 2 of them were boys....I just thought it was a little strange but at the same time it might just be the luck
of the draw.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
First off, this is long off in the future, not by 2020. It won't be cost effective enough, nor good enough yet. While yes, cloning has been
accomplished, it has a high failure rate, and is extremely expensive. How many cloned animals or people have you met?

Also, not only is it important for the fetus to hear the mother, it is important for the fetus to hear the father too. Those bonds are developed.

Most likely, if it was ever successful, it will just be used for people who have fertility issues and can't carry.

Just like abortion is the choice of the woman, how and when she carries the child also. And I think most mothers, except maybe those stressed abotu
their figures, will want to carry the babies themselves.

edit on 16-11-2012 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

At the very least, science may offer new methods of ending a pregnancy without destroying an embryo or fetus.

I could foresee this technology being used by the far right, the "Right to Lifers" to "save" the would be aborted children. The main change, except
the financial requirement, would be for the woman seeking to abort to wait till 21 weeks, when the fetus would be viable enough to be transferred to
the artificial womb. Then it could be put up for adoption, with the adoptive parents paying the subsequent costs.

I can see charities making this option affordable, through donations, the would be mother's contribution and the adoptive parents chipping in.

I would be concerned that in the future, that insurance companies would increasingly take the choice from the mother and opt for this mother to avoid
legal issues. Just like cesarians are increasing at a shocking rate, to avoid issues.

1. Such tech fortunately, is still years and years away from being commercially viable, and we should thank the researchers for revealing it early,
for the simple purpose that mankind DEBATES about the moral and ethical implications.

Not all tech can be controlled and put to good use. Atomic energy comes to mind. Either fortunately, or unfortunately, it became fesible within a
short time - weeks only, before mankind had a good chance to debate about its use, its pros and cons.

Similarly, the baby tech.

Adopted childs, from the perspective of the parents, are very lucky, because more often than not, adoptive parents are financially and socially stable
to offer the child a good life in abounding opportunities, till circumstances differ which becomes another timeline life opportunity.

Adopted child, from the child's side of perspective, IS ANOTHER ISSUE. Can he handle the emotional, moral and ethical issues when he comes of age
during his formative years which set the course of his life? Already, natural born children faces the real pyschological trauma of self identity known
as ' teenage angst'.

Will it be far worse if he knows he was just a test tube baby to serve the selfish desires of a married couple, or worse, a single parent, whom denied
themselves the responsibilities of the reproduction act to bear and grow that life from conception?

If the mother had not known the responsibilities of caring for a real baby forming within her, the tender care and sacrifices she made for 9 months,
will she love the test tube baby as much as a real one within her, or will she just simply 'dial a baby' for another if the present test tube baby
prove a handful?

Serious issues need more discussion and debates. Research can go on, as such discoveries is not limited to human life, but endangered species as well
for those whom are funding such experiments.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Would be nice to have such options. I look forward to progression towards this.
Seems like a win across the board, from a mother able to keep her form and whatnot (many women do worry very much about that and decide to forego
motherhood simply for that). Also, removal of the whole debate..

.

If women forgo having children because of their figure, they were not emotionally mature to have a kid to begin with. That is something that you
accept as a mother. Hell my kid wrecked my body, and I wouldn't change it for one second.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.